After sharing these pictures illustrating the natural global carbon cycle, I noticed the big dark cloud of smoke emitting from the factory stands out. Now I want for you to think about what I am about to say to you. Just by looking at this picture above, can you immediately think/see a simple solution to that big dark cloud of smoke emitting from the factory? Right away I'm thinking why hasn't someone invented a filter for the factory smoke stacks? A filter similar to the ones placed in our cars. The part that is installed in our cars is called a catalytic converter. Please read the following description:
A catalytic converter is a vehicle emissions control device which converts toxic byproducts of combustion in the exhaust of an internal combustion engine to less toxic substances by way of catalysed chemical reactions. The specific reactions vary with the type of catalyst installed. Most present-day vehicles that run on gasoline are fitted with a “three way” converter, so named because it converts the three main pollutants in automobile exhaust. The three main pollutants are carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen. The first two are converted to two new molecules. This happens through an oxidizing reaction which converts carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbons (HC) to CO2 and water vapor. The last pollutant is converted to three new molecules. This happens through a reduction reaction which converts oxides of nitrogen (NOx) to CO2, nitrogen (N2) and water (H2O). [source: wikipedia]
If these Global Warming fearmongers were serious about CO2 emissions, why after all of these years haven't one of them suggested a simple filter for factory smoke stacks? Instead, the Global Warming fearmongers created carbon credits scheme and a carbon tax scheme where industrial polluters pay high taxes for the toxic CO2 their factory smoke stacks emit. Now how can any person rationally believe the carbon credits and carbon tax are a viable solution to our global pollution problem? They just want to tax a factory or industrial complex out of existence. This is why I know that the Global Warming campaign is a scam. I honestly believe this has been all part of their plan to build a Utopian society where the masses are under one control or eliminated so they can live in their "perfect" world. I have watched several PSA Global Warming videos that have been distributed around the world and let me tell you they are not pretty. If anyone doesn't follow their way of thinking, that person is immediately eliminated. So basically, they want a cloned society where no independent thought is allowed. Now that scares the crap out of me more than a natural catastrophe or the end of the world.
This is Socialism leading into Communism. These people think in terms of the COLLECTIVE. If you question their assumptions and don't agree, they are showing you here in this video how easy it is for them to TERMINATE YOU! They are in essense trying to CONTROL your FREE WILL, your God given right to THINK FOR YOURSELF! You MUST THINK like the COLLECTIVE!!!
BIG Government - Breitbart.com
written by John Sexton
Wednesday April 3, 2013
There's a new consensus forming that the worst forecasts for global climate change may need to be reconsidered. The clearest sign of this is a piece that appeared in the Economist March 30th titled "A Sensitive Matter."
The title of the piece has a double meaning. It's a reference to climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide but also to the political climate which, in the last five years, has taken to calling anyone who dares to disagree with climate predictions "deniers."
But the Economist, which has a history of pushing dire predictions about climate change, has decided to broach the sensitive topic and point out actual surface temperatures have already exited the 75 percent confidence interval predicted by climate models and now seems on course to exit the 95 percent interval in just a couple more years.
That could still change of course, but for the moment it looks like the models have predicted more warming than is actually taking place. There are of course different possible explanations for this. It's possible that aerosols are more reflective than previously thought, meaning more of the sun's energy is being reflected rather than absorbed. At the same time, it's possible that the warming effect of one aerosol, soot, has been underestimated by climate models.
The Economist points out that there are new papers being published using alternative models which predict a significantly lower temperature increase. The article highlights several of these including the work of Nic Lewis who "reanalysed work cited by the IPCC and took account of more recent temperature data." Lewis concluded the actual temperature increase would more likely be around 1.6 degrees Celsius. That's half the increase predicted by the IPCC.
The policy impact comes not at the end of the piece but in the middle. It's the kind of common sense that should appeal to conservatives turned off by climate change fear-mongering:
If, as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3°C [3°C = 37.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Please look at the post I shared yesterday showing that our global temperature has only risen approximately 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the year 1900. The Global Warming campaign has an underlying unconsciounable agenda that has nothing to do with saving our planet and everything to do with controlling the masses. (emphasis mine)] or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service: rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it. This is called “mitigation”, in the jargon. Moreover, if there were an outside possibility of something catastrophic, such as a 6°C rise, that could justify drastic interventions. This would be similar to taking out disaster insurance. It may seem an unnecessary expense when you are forking out for the premiums, but when you need it, you really need it. Many economists, including William Nordhaus of Yale University, have made this case.If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin.
The important point is that we just don't know enough at this moment to say which response--mitigation, drastic intervention or adaptation, is appropriate. The growing divergence between models and reality means the consensus--like the models--may need some adjustment.
***********************************
I'd like to share a comment made by WhereTheProof:
Michael Crichton speech at the California Institute of Technology (January 17, 2003):
“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear ‘the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other’, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. Consensus is irrelevant: what is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the
consensus.”
No comments:
Post a Comment